The idea of using frequencies for treating infection came as quite a surprise to me.
I was working in a family practice office and we had a patient come in that had been injured in a military exercise.
Previous to visiting our office, his injury had been diagnosed infected with MRSA and treated with antibiotics. The antibiotics did not improve the infection and then it was diagnosed as pan-drug-resistant (PDR) Necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating bacteria). This bacteria is defined as non-susceptibility to all agents in all antimicrobial categories (fancy for antibiotics of any kind will likely not work).
Additionally, he did not want to continue "losing time" treating with a drug that would probably not work any better than the antibiotic he had already used. On top of that, the prognosis for the recommended surgery was not good.
Unknown to me and prior to my time working in this practice, there had been other patients who had visited the clinic with a similar infection and the Doctor I was working with had treated it successfully.
In this office, they had several devices that were used to treat this type of infection with frequency wavelengths.
The patient hoped that within a day or two he might make some progress and avoid surgery but more importantly make the infection a thing of the past.
Though I had been working in this office for a few years at that point, I had not seen a case like this, nor was I aware as to why this patient was coming to our practice instead of going to an infectious disease specialist for a 3rd opinion.
So in keeping the story short. This patient was treated with different frequencies that were grouped together in a singular “code”, the frequencies would run one at a time in sequence until finished. This particular set of “codes” were run 1.5 hours 2 times in the 1st week.
Again treated a 3rd and 4th time in the 2nd week.
After the first week, the wound which would not close previously, closed. After the second week, it was clearly healing. At this point, the patient left to go back to his home out of state.
The patient did remarkably well post-treatment and the wound healed in a way with minimal scar tissue.
For confidentiality reasons, I cannot show the pictures here but it was remarkable how well this worked. I was thoroughly impressed.
I then immediately bought the same technology and initially was only planning to use it with my own family and to be honest just in case of emergency.
This attitude didn’t last long of course, because in the interest of helping my patients, it seemed that numerous opportunities were coming up in which this technology could be very beneficial and most importantly help with issues where standard treatments were not working.
I began using the technology in my own clinic. Results have been, and still are hard to believe.
I have treated bone spurs, plantar fasciitis, Helicobacter pylori infections, blastocystis infections, respiratory problems, cysts of varying types, and a variety of other issues, but I have been most impressed by the effectiveness of using frequency on infections.
See a case study here… Using frequency to heal H. Pylori Infection
When I saw this equipment for the first time I thought it was primarily used for musculoskeletal problems, which it historically is, though as I soon learned, it can be used for much more. Later, I learned many practitioners were using these devices to heal infections, bone problems, speed up healing processes and more, to which the efficacy was striking.
You're probably wondering if treating infections this way really works, why has the general public not heard about this type of treatment?
Well, some media about frequency and electromagnetic treatment methods do exist. This information is usually put out somewhat quietly, such as in the case of Brain glioblastomas using advanced technology... reference article from 2017… CBS News
about https://www.optune.com/ technology. Aside from the occasional story about this, you won’t hear much about it unless you know how to search specifically online.
The problem in proving the effectiveness of this type of technology by stacking up case studies is that many practitioners will not talk openly about the use of frequency as a treatment modality for anything other than muscle stimulation. Speaking publicly about these things is risky because it is not an accepted standard for dealing with any physical problems except for muscle stimulation and relaxation. Treating serious physical problems outside of the accepted use of devices like this could get you ostracised or worse - draw the ire of a state professional regulatory board.
Doctors bypass this by not using the therapy unless there seemingly aren’t any other treatment options available to deal with the problem.
My goal in passing on this information is to provide people with the knowledge that this type of treatment is coming of age and the more people that know about it the better, as they can start asking their Doctors about it and open up the conversation when other standard options have run out.
Obviously, when faced with a potentially serious infection the answer should always first be conventional treatment with the appropriate practitioner.